Guy Opperman: I am conscious that I have limited time, so I will write to the hon. Lady and the Chair of the Select Committee to expand upon my answers. As I am sure she understands, I am constrained in what I can say about a live judicial review case, but I think I have  set it out in quite a lot of detail. The DWP cases are currently paused, but we would aim to ensure that these complaints are completed without a complainant necessarily reapplying. That said, I will go into more detail in writing and seek to amplify my answer in respect of the independent case examiner and the ombudsman system.
I want to address briefly the point about the national insurance fund that the hon. Lady raised. It is simply not true that the national insurance fund is used purely to reduce national debt. It is financed on a pay-as-you-earn basis with receipts collected in one year used to pay for certain benefit payments, including the state pension paid out in the same year. It is important that the working balance of the national insurance fund remain positive, as this ensures there are always enough funds to pay for these benefits and allows the Government to deal with short-term fluctuations in spending or receipts.
If the balance of the fund is expected to fall below one sixth of the forecast annual benefit expenditure, the Government will transfer a Treasury grant paid for by general taxation into the national insurance fund. This ensures that benefits such as the state pension can always be paid as necessary. It is inaccurate to suggest there is a surplus in the fund that can simply be drawn upon. The balance of the fund is managed as part of the Government’s overall management of public finances and reduces the need for them to borrow from elsewhere, so any additional spending from the national insurance fund would represent an increase in overall Government spending and, without cuts in other areas of spend or  additional taxes, an increase in Government borrowing. This is a policy that has been continued by successive Governments since the 1980s, and it simply is not correct to state that, had the supplement continued to be paid at the same level as previously, the fund would have the capacity to satisfy the claim of the ladies.
I will briefly touch on the issue of pensioner poverty to make the point that, since 2010, there are 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty, which is a record low. The hon. Lady will be aware that we spend £121 billion on benefits for pensioners, including £97 billion on the state pension this year—2018-19. The overall trend in the percentage of pensioners living in poverty shows a dramatic fall over several decades, from 40% in the 1970s to 16% in relative poverty now. Clearly, more needs to be done, but the direction of travel is quite clear. Between April 2010 and April 2018, the basic state pension has risen substantially, by £1,450 in cash terms.
The fact remains that the key choice any Government face when life expectancy is increasing is whether to increase the state pension age or to pay lower pensions, with an inevitable impact on pensioner poverty. The only alternative is to ask the working generation to pay an ever larger share of their income to support pensioners. I believe that successive Governments have made the appropriate but difficult decisions to equalise and increase the state pension age.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.